Changing Course or Changing Parties; Zionism Exposed

This first part of this blog post focuses on the significant and rapid changes that are occuring in the domestic political landscape.

It's undeniable the Democrats trounced the Republicans, but the issue of when and how we get out of Iraq may foretell of a Democratic betrayal of the antiwar cause.

Later on, I discuss the crucial influence of Zionism in our media and foreign policy. It's crucial to the cause of peace that the Mainstream Media openly address the "Israeli-Palestinian debate" rather than avoid any issues possibly detrimental to Israel. Israeli aggression towards Palestine cultivates support for terror, and US foreign policy must address the limitations of using military force in confronting terrorism.

Shake Up

Seymour Hersh writes that the Gates nomination and Rumsfeld departure appear to be signals that the hawks in the Administration have been check in their efforts to launch a war in Iran.

On Rumsfeld's departure, Seymour Hersh quotes a "former senior intelligence official" as saying:
"Dropping Rummy after the election looked like a conciliatory move—‘You’re right, Democrats. We got a new guy and we’re looking at all the options. Nothing is ruled out.’"

Hersh writes:

"...But the conciliatory gesture would not be accompanied by a significant change in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone who would have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq. Gates would also be an asset before Congress. If the Administration needed to make the case that Iran’s weapons program posed an imminent threat, Gates would be a better advocate than someone who had been associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq..." [Source]

Hersh goes on to quote Richard Armitage as saying that the combination of the Democratic victory and Rumsfeld's termination showed that the Administration has backed off on military intervention in Iran.

Hersh brings up in his article The Annals of National Security the possibility Gates will be sacrificed before Congress like Powell was before the UN in order to give credibility to any military action against Iran.

A designated fall guy may have worked well before Iraq, but with the public and Congress victimized by "intelligence failures" in the lead-up to Iraq, using Gates to talk up the threat would fail to help the cause. Besides, Gates lacks Powell's military credentials, or star power.

The key issue going forward is whether or not the Administration can pull back from images of its supremacist position on Iraq, and tone down its anti-Iranian rhetoric. Rice and Cheney still persist in influencing Bush, who eagerly bought into the Iraq War as cause celebre of his Presidency. Seeking a legacy, Bush will no doubt find it difficult--if not impossible--to back off rosy predictions of victory.

Bush must now realizes that the neo-con advice he so eagerly swallowed could forever taint his legacy as problems in Iraq fester and victory goes farther and farther out of reach. Distant and insulated, El Presidente may be preserving a state of denial over the outcome of the Iraq misadventure. [See subsequent post]

Rumsfeld's departure does signal a turn towards a more reasoned approach undoubtedly fostered by his father and even wife Laura, who had wanted Rumsfeld gone. Yet the ability of prominent neocon Dick Cheney to shape policy and make Bush's decisions for him appears unprecedented in history, and persistent.

Now that Rumsfeld is gone, Cheney's position is increasingly isolated. As the neocon ranks thin, ever greater will the need be to insulate the President from the reality of events on the ground in Iraq. Like some personal intervention, perhaps the President's family will need to circle 'round him, console him, and tell him how Cheney has affected him, like some unhealthy addiction he needs to quit.

The Hoyer/Pelosi issue

There are two issues in Nancy Pelosi's ascent to the position of Speaker of the House. The first is the idea that Pelosi suffered an internal political defeat in her choice for Majority Leader in Jack Murtha. The concept is that Pelosi's handle on her own party may be less firm than needed to stop the war.

Also, as a woman in a position of authority, Pelosi makes a juicy target for natural enemies across the aisle, as well as closet masogenists. Anything Pelosi's enemies can do to make her look more infirm or incapable of leading may play to sexist stereotypes. Or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, anything that can make Pelosi look obsessive and driven--typically masculine roles--can paint her as the mean old witch (in what will probably be a smear technique used by Hillary's opponents.)

The second issue is just how antiwar Hoyer is. Hoyer claims to have signed similar letters endorsing a change of policy, and claims to be as anti-Iraq War as Murtha. Nonetheless, reading from the broad range of antiwar opinion, it's nearly impossible for me to believe that the Hoyer election was anything but a movement away from the antiwar position that got the Democrats in office.

A gut feeling, wholly unsubstantiated at this point, is the idea that most Democrats will drag out the war, while trying to slowing end it, rather than seek immediate closure. An end to the war may not bring the Democrats any political gain as valuable as the ongoing political damage that Iraq engenders for the Republicans. In other words, the Democrats will likely bleed the Republicans and try to make them pay for their leadership on Iraq.

Now, however, the onus of extracting us from Iraq lies with the Democrats. Unfortunately, every "failure" to bring the war to an end will embroil the far less tarnished Democrats. Should a draft arise, much of the anti-incumbency directed towards the Republicans could spill over to the new incumbents: the Democrats.

If the political majority against the war can sway the political environment as it has now, with losses a fraction of Vietnam, who knows how strong the movement could become with a draft and a spiralling death toll. As a matter of fact, some in the Republican party may seek to increase troop levels in order to force the Democrats to start a draft.

As in Vietnam, when politicians in Washington start playing games with issues like troop levels or target lists, the military effort invariably plays a price. More a political than military leader, Rumsfeld has proven wholly inadequate; in hindsight his policies almost look intentionally designed to create the quagmire we now face, instead of a poorly conceived plan.

While the Right has blamed the defeat in Vietnam on politics--grotesquely distorting the role the Vietnamese played in forcing us out--they have been incapable of keeping politics out of Iraq.

If the US were able to convince its population based purely on reason and military justification, people might consider escalation. But no government has been able to justify or perpetuate endless war. Therefore sooner or later practical methods to end war must be evoked.

So few wars really do end with a positive or even productive outcome for either participant. If enough people have died, enough needless damage been wreaked, and precious little fundamentally changed, the end is in itself the achievement.

Accepting that war so rarely solves any problems appears to be too difficult for the militarists in the Bush junta. Even as the clear limitations that their policies have created are exposed, Cheney, Rice, and Bush frame victory as a simple matter of commitment. This distortion revolves around hubris, as if the outcome of external events revolves around Washington, rather than being shaped by realities on the ground abroad.

Lesson Unlearned

In his trip to Vietnam, Bush made the woefully ignorant statement that "we'll succeed unless we quit." This indicates he 1) believes the cause was worth continuing and 2) the Vietnamese weren't winning and that the US was on a course towards victory.

It's truly shameful no one in Bush's circle will point out the inherent falsehoods in the President's ignorant statement, just as no one would tell the Emperor he wore no clothes. (See the well-crafted Hans Christian Anderson fable here)

On Monday the 20th, Keith Olbermann launched into an impressive tirade over Bush's Vietnam comment. I strongly recommend watching it here.


---------------

Norm Solomon has a sense of deja vu concerning the reluctance of American government to get out. He can cite from memory examples of media and government excuses for continuing the war in Vietnam. How much similiar they are today!

In Norm Solomon's book War Made Easy, in response to the premise that "Withdrawal Would Cripple U.S. Credibility," Solomon sums up one article in Time debating an exit from Iraq:

..."the most" that could be hoped for was that "some kind" of elected Iraqi government would "eventually emerge," at which time the United States "could conceivably" manage to "reduce" its troop level in Iraq "significantly" although even that vague hope necessitated a commitment of "at least several more months" of Americans killing and dying. But in several more months, predictably, there would still be no end in sight -- just another blank check for more "blood and treasure," on the installment plan. [Source]

Solomon cites a Wall Street Journal Poll all the way back from 2004 which indicated 1/4 of Americans favored an immediate pullout and 30% more wanted one within 18 months.

The total favoring pullout now or in the near future appears to be largely unchanged. I was unable to trace the CNN poll I mentioned in my last post; I'd been seeking current polling detailing popular support for a pull-out.

Trolling through CNN's site, in the transcript for November 13th, Candy Crowley does come through:
"...In exit polls this year, only 17 percent of voters said they wanted to send more troops. Twenty-one percent wanted to hold at current levels. Fifty-five percent wanted to withdraw some or all U.S. troops from Iraq."
[Source; about 1/6th the way down]

The 55% or so of Americans who want us out now or in the short term appears quite persistent. So, exiting troops from Iraq is clearly the position of a majority of Americans and has been that way for more than 2 years. The delay is significant as the death rolls rise with no end in sight.

Judging from Vietnam, the costs of delay are substantial:
"Contrary to myths about media coverage of the Vietnam War, the American press lagged way behind grassroots anti-war sentiment in seriously contemplating a US pullout from Vietnam. The lag time amounted to several years - and meant the additional deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and perhaps 1 million more Vietnamese people."[Source]]

I was able to find this Zogby poll of American troops serving in Iraq, taken Jan-Feb, 2006. No one is in a better position to evaluate firsthand what is going on in Iraq, and judge the future results than our troops over there. At that time, a stong majority--72%--thought the US should exit from Iraq within the next year.

Media

The absence of Mainstream Media support for ending the war has delayed our departure.

Solomon describes misperceptions about withdrawal as common now as they had been in Vietnam:
"Whether in 1968 or 2006, most of the Washington press corps has been at pains to portray withdrawal of US troops as impractical and unrealistic." [Source]

Personalities like Keith Olbermann may complain quite forcefully, but many editors take a conservative approach to questioning Administration policies. Why would they risk losing their jobs? Massive conglomerates control the heavily consolidated Media industry; many are run by supporters of the war.

What are broadly percieved as liberal bastions simply aren't. The New York Times has failed to editorialize against the war. What's more The Paper of Record has directly supported a continuance of the occupation. By failing to control their star reporter Judith Miller, a stream of unsubstantiated rumour about Iraqi WMD wormed its way to the front of the paper.

In a new article, "The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War", Solomon accuses NYT reporter Michael Gordon of flagrant bias:

{Gordon} appeared hours later on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, fully morphing into an unabashed pundit as he declared that withdrawal is 'simply not realistic.' Sounding much like a Pentagon spokesman, Gordon went on to state in no uncertain terms that he opposes a pullout.

If a New York Times military-affairs reporter went on television to advocate for withdrawal of US troops as unequivocally as Gordon advocated against any such withdrawal during his November 15 appearance on CNN, he or she would be quickly reprimanded - and probably would be taken off the beat - by the Times hierarchy. But the paper's news department eagerly fosters reporting that internalizes and promotes the basic worldviews of the country's national security state.

That's how and why the Times front page was so hospitable to the work of Judith Miller during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. That's how and why the Times is now so hospitable to the work of Michael Gordon. [Source]

The NYT is not alone. According to Solomon, "In 2004 the {Wall Street} Journal editorial writers were fervently promoting a 'war on terrorism' version of what used to be called the domino theory."

"that theory...insisted that a U.S. defeat in Vietnam would set the dominos falling through Southeast Asia until the entire region and beyond went Communist. The day after the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters blew up in August 2003, the Wall Street Journal closed its latest gung-ho editorial by touting a quote from General John Abizaid: 'If we can't be successful here, then we won't be successful in the global war on terror. It is going to be hard. It is going to be long and sometimes bloody, but we just have to stick with t.'"[Source, as above]

And why do we have to stick with it? Is the return on our investment improving, or yielding less and less? Will the additional investment in lives and money be justified by an appreciably greater end result?

We've often heard Iraq described as the central battlefront in the war on terror. If we are losing in Iraq, we are losing the war on terror. This fact may far harder to confront than pretending we can still win in Iraq, and therefore win against terror.

Who Controls Foreign Policy

On CNN's Situation Room November 16, The Hill's AB Stoddard and Wolf Blitzer had an exchange in which Stoddard said that the President controls foreign policy, and that the only direct method for stopping the war available to Congress was stopping the flow of funds, which Stoddard claimed was a move Congress was not willing to make. That option aside, Stoddard said the most Congress could do was to apply political pressure on the White House.

I couldn't help but think there had to be some way, some law, some step Congress could do, but regrettably couldn't think of one. Besides, Stoddard was a Washington insider, someone who clearly knew what she was talking about.

Then in the course of my news-following, I came upon "The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War" by Norm Solomon. In it, Solomon describes an exchange concerning this point early in Vietnam:

The show's host on that 1964 telecast was the widely esteemed journalist Peter Lisagor, who told his guest: "Senator, the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy."

"Couldn't be more wrong," Senator Wayne Morse broke in with his sandpapery voice. "You couldn't make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That's nonsense."

Lisagor was almost taunting as he asked, "To whom does it belong then, Senator?"

Morse did not miss a beat. "It belongs to the American people," he shot back - and "I am pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy."

The journalist persisted: "You know, Senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy."

Morse's response was indignant: "Why do you say that? ... I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them. And my charge against my government is, we're not giving the American people the facts." [Source]

Touche.

Also on CNN November 13th, Congressional correspondent Dana Bash said of withdrawal:
"Even with the new reins of power, congressional Democrats are limited in how much they can change U.S. policy in Iraq, since the president is commander in chief. Congress could force troops to come home by cutting off funding, but Democrats say that's off the table, a political nonstarter which would harm service men and women." [ Source]

It's not hard to say what harms our troops more, putting them in harm's way, to marginal effect, burdening their families with endless service and endless worry, or getting them out of harm's way. Cutting funding may be the only way that the Congress can stop the war. For the Democrats to continue to fund the war would actually be denying the popular political mandate against the war.

The Democrat's victory entitles--and obligates--them to end the war by any means possible. If Bush cannot remove our troops from Iraq, the responsibility falls to Congress. If they fail in that responsibility, the lives of many more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be needlessly lost, having done nothing to alter the inevitable outcome.

Military Limits

The War on Terror has become ineffective, in large part due to the military's inability to implement Administration policies in Iraq.

On Tony Karon's Rootless Cosmopolitan, the article "The Iraqi Failure and the End of the American Century" states:

"U.S. talk-shows and op-ed pages are filled with proposals for Iraq [EM] partition it; shunt aside the elected government and let a strongman regime kick ass and take names; start withdrawing the troops to send the Iraqis a message; send more troops to stabilize the security situation [EM] but the reality of which Baker will be only too grimly aware is that the time has passed in which the U.S. could hope to write the script for events in Iraq. The U.S. maintains considerable power in Iraq, but not sufficient to impose its will. There are too many other actors in the field who, while they can’t impose their own will, are more than capable of restraining U.S. efforts..."

Karon goes on to list some of the many limitations of the exercise of US influence and power in Iraq. A decline of American military and political influence is not limited to Iraq. He goes on to say:

"the new reality of U.S. policy in relation to North Korea and Iran — the U.S. quite simply lacks sufficient power to impose its will, and is being forced to abide by a multilateral consensus that is quite different from Washington’s own position."

He focuses on an article in the Guardian, "America faces an age of imperial decline", wherein Martin Jacques points out:

"...the decline of U.S. power in north Asia relative to that of China that has ultimately consigned it to the role of second fiddle to Beijing in the search for a diplomatic solution. In the Middle East, its distaste for dealing with Islamist parties has simply left the U.S. isolated from the regional political dynamic, having all but abandoned its post World War II role of final arbiter of the region’s conflicts. And even in Latin America, traditionally its imperial 'backyard,' the U.S. is more isolated politically than ever, as it flails and fails to stop a leftward drift by the continent’s electorates." [Source]

Pro-Israeli Bias

Karon also has a piece on Israel worth reading. You can find the article
here.

As I said in my last post, US foreign policy in the Mideast has undeniably been shaped by the "special relationship" we have with Israel. The fact we are allies with the Israelis in no big surprise--we share a large Jewish population. Yet whenever we see the co-opting of US foreign policy by a foreign interest, issues are bound to emerge, particular when that other country sees itself as constantly under the threat of attack by its neighbors and preemptive military action as its only recourse.

As I pointed out in my last post, Israeli's preemptive warfare against perceived threats in the Muslim world set a precedent for the US in its War on Terror, a war which is perhaps not coincidentally waged against Israel's enemies.

Preemptive warfare is illegal under international law, not that that would really matter to a die-hard militarist or nationalist. Even when the threat of a impeding terror strike is considered, preemptive war may hardly be an effective means of preventing non-State actors from succeeding. We see also in the failure to stabilize Iraq a failure to establish the peace, which lengthens our commitment.

Overblown influence by foreigners and their sympathizers lets the US be drawn into political games played abroad. The use of war as a policy device may not be overwhelmingly popular, but it can appeal to the Right's ultra-nationalist base.

The Right is willing to seed destructive policies by placating its base through war. As we saw in the War on Lebanon, Olmert's war wasn't domestically popular. Service to the cause of war benefits the Israeli Right, which is are eager to maintain the illusion that constant war is a necessity and matter of survival.

Zionism, the concept which puts Jews as the chosen people of God, leads to a dangerous mindset among Israelis and their sympathizers. Territorial aggression is one of Zionism's consequences. Unchecked, the philosophy is racist and oppressive, quite the opposite of any multicultural mindset embraced by modern Western secularism.

Zionism undeniably birthed neo-conservatism, as most members of the neocon circle were Jews embracing Zionist principles. So it's really no surprise that our present neocon-inspired policies may also embrace the arbitrary and rampant use of superior force to oppress native populations in Iraq; our policies there have been created by Zionists.

The policymakers advocating military action on Iran now are from the same Zionist camp. Clearly these figures--Richard Perle, John Bolton, others--share a strong sense of loyalty not only to the Israeli cause, but to a far narrower aggressive, militarist Zionist posture.

Sharing foreign policy goals with an ally is one thing; implementing alien philosophies based on race and ethnicity is a whole 'nother matter. Working to help Israelis--many of whom are Arab--is a charitable objective; capitulating to a group of Zionists within Israel is a far more burdensome entanglement based on a questionable agenda--Jewish supremacy over the Middle East.

It may be that US interests do in fact lie with those of Israeli. The military synergies are undeniable and cooperation made even stronger through the GWOT. We send over $2 billion a year to the nation, with far more in loan guarantees. Israeli is also the largest recipient of US military aid and technology.

Israel's security is undoubtedly threatened in way most Americans could not imagine before 9/11. Still, Israel's large nuclear arsenal gives it a retaliatory capacity. It's also broadly known in the Middle East, that should Israel be struck with a nuclear weapon, the Israelis would respond against Damascus and Teheran more or less instanteously, whether or not evidence of involvement by those countries could be proven.

The avidly militarist agenda of Wurmser's Clean Break and the Project for a New American Century ("Pearl Harbor-type event") do lead to speculation concerning Israel's role in 9/11. What's so troubling and persistent about these rumours is the unfortunate coincidence that 9/11 seems to have served Zionist goals quite well. Conspiracy theorists will for this reason be able to blame the event on Israel.

Also quite damning for the cause of Zionism in America is the fallout of our Iraq War. If the War could be proven to have been instigated by Zionists, the US' commitment to Israel could be seriously depreciated. Anti-Zionist sentiment could easily become wantonly anti-Israeli sentiment, or generate wide anti-Semitism, and not just among Muslims.

There are clearly limits on the extent of Israeli influence in our government and in shaping US policy. The unprecedented level of influence by pro-Zionists in the Bush Administration opened a door of opportunity to synchronize US policy visions for the Middle East with those of Israel.

Still the "special relationship" is vulnerable to the consequences of policy failures as the US finds itself entangled in an Iraqi occupation which has undeniably damaged its policy goals in the region.

The precepts of aggressive territorialism inherent in Zionism have put Israel's international reputation under incredible strain.

It remains to be seen if Right-wing elements in Israel will face the political consequences of its aggressive policies. It's undeniable that Olmert's war in Lebanon damaged him politically, which is ironic considering the political fallout for Republicans over Iraq. Zionism--or is it the militarism it breeds?--appears to have failed both constituencies.

Zionism and Media Influence

It's amazing to recognize the extent of influence by supporters of Israel (or is it Zionism?) in the media. I'd like to devout more time to this issue, for in my role as a budding media critic, I've found overwhelming influence in every channel of the Mainstream Media.

The failure of the Mainstream Media to challenge Bush on Iraq can be traced to the prevalence of unconditional support for Israel among prominent members of the MSM. I think Jewish people are vulnerable to the notion that they must do all they can to protect Israel; this opens them up to exploitation by those who frame unending military action as necessary for the defense of the Jewish state.

Jews are eager defenders of their faith, perhaps in large part due to the
racism and genocide they've faced. Yet on issues like Iraq, American Jews remain quite skeptical, with a narrow majority opposed. So the natural question is: why support a war that makes no sense? How does antagonizing the Muslim world--which the Global War on Terror has undeniably done--help to protect and preserve Jewry? Perhaps the interests of the State of Israel don't overlap those of average Jews.

Many Jews are captivated by the notion that Israel is ringed by nations eager to destroy it. It's a stoic concept that unifies Jews throughout the world by virtue of ethnicity, regardless of the extent which they practice their religion. Yet for peaceful coexistence to be given a chance to work, the State of Israel needs to rein in militaristic and expansionistic concepts cradled by Zionism.

Fervent Zionists will say that they've tried that approach and the Arab side has violated their commitments. This is undoubtedly true on some levels, but at this point it's clear that killing more and more Palestinians and Lebanese civilians makes Israel into the aggressor. To say that some child in a refugee camp posed a threat to the safety of Israelis is more paranoia than practical defense.

The US Mainstream Media habitually underplays the Palestinian cause. After all, the Israelis are more like us. Americans can sympathize with the death of an Israeli far more easily than they can a Palestinian. Israel is more modern, more democratic, at least with those who've been given the right to vote within the country.

But there's far more to the underreporting of Palestinian deaths. The Media is hyper-sensitive to any criticism of Israel or its policies. Yet as the death toll mounts up, and more Americans get wind of what is really happening in Gaza, and how unnecessary so much of the killing is, the pro-Israel media veneer gradually erodes.

The zeal with which mostly Jewish Media figures have unconditionally defended Israel may have created a major issue. By trying to preserve a near total blackout on any news that could be considered unfavorable to Israel, media people have become enthralled to the whim of a small group of Zionist extremists. As the actions of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank penetrate the blackout, the credibility of the Mainstream Media--which has constricted the flow of information--will erode even further.

Already the MSM struggles to retain viewers and readers. As long as the Media can't serve the untarnished truth, Americans will look to alternative sources. While the threat posed by terrorism has been the most prominent public media impression shaped by 9/11, made equally significant by 9/11 is the reality the world has shrunk, and foreign problems have been made our own. Thus in seeking to understand their world, Americans will need to learn more about it.

Unconditionally defending any and all actions of the State of Israel, or ignoring in the media any issue detrimental to the cause of Zionism, can popularize anti-Semitism.

Zionism has more or less parasitically attached itself to the Jewish faith, in a way that is perhaps not entirely different from the rise of radical fundamentalism in the Muslim world. Both solutions embrace total warfare, and instill hatred of the other side, and embrace violence--one through terrorism and the other the imposition of military force (called State terror by its victims). True peace will emerge when both philosophies are thoroughly repudiated, and peaceful coexistence will be the result.

To regain its credibility, Israel needs to confront its internal distractors, not its outside detractors. Jews need to scrutinize their loyalty and understand that military action is not in the best long-term security interest of Israel, and that turning off (or down) the conflict requires concessions from both sides.

The MSM's unconditional acceptance of Israel's behavior may make them tools of a narrow Israeli political agenda. The real underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian issue do need to be openly addressed, without spin or fear of consequence.

Above all, shapers of American foreign policy need to realize the role Zionism plays in forming destructive policies. While the use of miltitary force may appear to be expeditious in the short-term, Iraq is showing the difficulties of denying non-State actors their agendas, no matter how nefarious.

Radicals ride the wave of popular resentment which Israel's treatment of the Palestinians engenders in the Muslim world, popularizing terrorism. By confronting the fallibility of Israeli and American policies, restricting unilateral action, both countries will enjoy the benefit of international cooperation, which is prerequisite of peaceful coexistence and ultimately Man's survival in the nuclear age.

///